The "Party Line" in Relation to Fatima
by Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M. Div., S.T.L. (Cand.)
Editors Note: The following is an edited transcript of a speech given at the Fatima Peace Conference in Rome, October 2001.
Our Lady of Fatima said that Russia will spread her errors throughout the world. What are the errors of Russia? If we consider as is documented by Father Manfred Adler in his work Die Antichristliche Revolution der Freimaurerei, which is in English The Anti-Christian Revolution of Freemasonry all the great leaders of Communist revolutions in the early 20th Century were members of the Freemasonic sect. They were acknowledged and praised as such by their brothers in the lodge.
Masonic Infiltration of the Vatican
The errors of Russia are the errors of Freemasonry. The late Malachi Martin, in one of his books, made mention of the fact he said it was ironic that of all the governments of the world, the Vatican seemed to be the place where Masonry was most entrenched, more entrenched than in the secular governments of the world.
There is a law in Italy that the secret society of Masonry must have a registry of their members. And in that registry one finds the names of some high-ranking ecclesiastics in the Vatican.
When Saint Maximilian Kolbe first came to Rome, in 1917, he saw a parade, a public manifestation of Masons. They were carrying placards and on their placards it was written, "Satan will rule from the Vatican. The Pope will be his slave." How would they bring that about? What was their program? It was the Freemasons themselves who declared with the utmost arrogance "we are going to destroy the Church by means of holy obedience."
This means, they very clearly expressed, their intention to infiltrate into the ranks of the hierarchy to gain positions of authority and to promote the program and policies of Freemasonry; and to enforce it by abusing the God-given office of ecclesiastical authority. The authority given by Christ to rule according to the law of God and to promote the kingdom of God on earth would be transformed, perverted. That office, they announced, would be used to propagate what they themselves call the counterchurch, the antichurch.
When Our Lady of Fatima said that the errors of Russia would be spread throughout the world, it could not be understood so well at the time. The three children, at that time, certainly did not know what were the errors of Russia. When Sister Lucy wrote her memoirs she, of course, clearly understood what were the principal errors of Russia.
What is in the Third Secret reveals more still. Father Joaquin Alonso spoke of the Third Secret in terms of the failures, the deficiencies of the upper hierarchy of the Church.
Sister Lucy was always ready to correct when anyone made a public pronouncement about the Third Secret that was erroneous. Her silence is conspicuous. She never made any correction of the pronouncements on the Third Secret of Father Alonso, who was the official peritus appointed to gather together the documents concerning the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima. Father Alonso said that the Third Secret would vindicate those in the Church who are referred to as Traditionalists. Sister Lucy never made any correction of that statement. It is true. It is correct.
A friend of mine, an Italian priest, had, some years ago, a great pile of issues of a magazine that is not well known outside of Italy but is well known to the clergy of Italy. The magazine is called Chiesa Viva. My friend was reading to me from the pages of that magazine a document going back to the 1920s, how Freemasonry, in their own document, told what changes they were going to instigate to take place in the Sacred Liturgy.
After Vatican II, the changes that were made in the Sacred Liturgy were exactly, point for point, the fulfilment, the carrying out, the execution of the program announced in the 1920s by the Freemasons.
The changes that were made in the Roman liturgy were the changes prescribed behind the doors of the Freemasonic lodges. As Malachi Martin said, Masonry is entrenched in the Vatican.
The errors of Russia are the errors of Masonry. But who could ever have thought that the instrument to propagate the errors of Russia would be those Modernist clerics who unworthily hold high positions of authority in the Holy See.
I, obviously, cannot mention any names. One source of mine, inside the Vatican, who is a high-ranking prelate, told me years ago, "Our hands are tied. We can do nothing. It is Freemasons who hold the key positions."
The Party Line
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin once said, "The lie is sacred and deception will be our principal weapon." So it is not going to be any surprise if we look at all the back issues of Pravda, when it was the official organ of the Soviet Communist Party, when Russia was, at the time, known as the Soviet Union; we see that Pravda was filled with lies.
Now what is the meaning of the name Pravda? Truth! Here is the newspaper whose name is "truth", and page after page was always filled with lies. This is not a surprise. Lenin said, "the lie is sacred and deception will be our principal weapon".
Now I cannot convince you that I am telling the truth if I wear a big placard on my chest that says "Liar!". If I tell you "I am a liar, and as a liar please believe me now, what Im going to tell you is the truth," I dont think even a fool would believe me because this is something that is so obviously absurd.
So for the man for whom the lie is sacred, in order to convince his hearers that he is telling the truth, he must first redefine truth. The Scripture says, pronouncing the curse in the book of Isaias, "Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness". [Is. 5:20] The darkness of falsehood is given the appearance of truth, the light of truth. This is one of the principal errors of Russia.
It did not start with Russia, it did not start with the Communists, it began with the devil. St. Paul speaks of the devil under the guise of the angel of light. To be more specific, he refers to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." [Gal. 1:8] It is the devil, appearing under the guise of the angel of light, who gives the appearance of truth in order to deceive by means of the lie. This is where the error "the lie is sacred" and "falsehood is truth" originated.
I remember I was talking with General Daniel Graham, a general in the US Army. He said that he had once been in Russia with a Soviet official and the Soviet official asked him, "Dont you want peace?" And he answered, "No! Because I know how you define peace. I know what is your definition of peace. I do not want that." Just as they were talking, they drove by a huge billboard that showed soldiers with their rifles. And there was the big caption "Pobieda kommunista eta mir". Which is, in English, "Communist Victory is Peace."
Now, according to Communist doctrine, (Marxist teaching) you wage war and make revolution and you use every possible means of deception total war in order to subjugate the entire world, to conquer the entire world, and make the entire world Communist. And once war has been waged and Communism is victorious on the entire planet, then you have what is called "peace". And so Lenin said "even if you must destroy 3/4 of the world, that doesnt matter, as long as the surviving 1/4 of the world is Communist." This is the Communist definition of peace. What is peace in reality? It is best defined by St. Augustine. "Peace is the tranquility of order."
Which definition is correct? It is not a matter of subjective evaluation. St. Thomas Aquinas explains "ens et verum convertunter", which is a scholastic way of saying that truth is convertible with reality. That which is objectively real is objectively true.
We all see the color white. But if it were to promote the Communist revolution for me to say that white is black, then, according to Communist doctrine, white is black. What is truth? According to Marxist doctrine, truth is that which promotes the Communist revolution. That is truth. What is it that promotes the Communist revolution? That which has been decided to be the Party Line. What the Party dictates to be true, that is true. If the Party tells you that black is white, then that is what you must believe, because it has been decided by the Party.
Now we can begin to see how the errors of Russia are being spread through the world through the agency of the Vaticans Secretariat of State.
The Political Program of Perfidious Prelates
Mr. Christopher Ferrara has already pointed out to you the relevant quotations concerning the Message of Fatima, the consecration requested by Our Lady of Fatima and the revelation of the Third Secret. Im not going to repeat those details. Im going to address, rather, the issue of motive. Why would somebody in a position of authority in the Church, the Church which, according to Sacred Scripture, is the "pillar of truth" [1 Tim. 3:15] why is someone going to use their ecclesiastical office to spread lies? Whats the motive? Why would someone want to do this?
The answer, of course, is that the lie promotes their political agenda. What has this to do with the Message of Fatima? It has everything to do with the reason why those in authority have perpetrated the fraud of telling us that the entire Third Secret has been revealed when in fact it has been withheld. It becomes clear why those in positions of authority insist that the Consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima has been done when, in fact, it has not been done.
You have all heard quoted again (read by Mr. Ferrara) the absolutely ridiculous statement (made by Archbishop Bertone in the June 26, 2000, document "The Message of Fatima") that "to make public the third part of the secret of Fatima, brings to an end a period of history marked by tragic human lust for power and evil." The Consecration of Russia is allegedly completed, it is done. Our Lady of Fatima said that God promises peace for the world and the conversion of Russia as the result of this consecration. Now the Vatican says that the consecration is already done. And now that the Pope has revealed this vision of the Third Secret, it is the end of that period of history where you have lust for power and evil. Evil is over. Now we are living in the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
This conference began yesterday, October 7, 2001. The events that took place yesterday are in all of the newspapers today. I looked on the front page of the Roman daily newspaper, Il Messaggero, and I see the headline "E Scoppiata la Guerra", which means in English "War Has Broken Out".
War has broken out.
But according to Cardinal Ratzinger and Monsignor Bertone, following the Party Line of Cardinal Sodano, we are to believe that peace has broken out. Tell that to the people of New York; tell that to the people of Afghanistan peace has broken out. Why the absurdity? Because this is the Party Line of the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano.
According to the perspectives of Cardinal Sodano, the Message of Fatima is to be eliminated and therefore those who would promote the Message of Fatima must be silenced by whatever means is necessary. And every means of trickery and deceit will be used to bring it about so that those who promote the Message of Fatima will be silenced, will be despised, will be, in the eyes of the world, discredited.
That is their plan. But they will not triumph, She will triumph. Her Immaculate Heart will triumph and the Message of Fatima cannot be silenced.
Father Gruner Bucks the Fraudulent Party Line
This brings us into the question of why the Vatican apparatus makes the declaration that Father Gruner is under suspension when it has been clearly demonstrated that he is not suspended. The Code of Canon Law (Can. 221 §3) states very clearly that ecclesiastical penalties can only be inflicted according to the norm of ecclesiastical law. That means if you are given a command that is contrary to canon law, contrary to civil law, then according to Canon 22 the order or command is null and void. One is not bound to obey.
Furthermore, the Code of Canon Law specifies that if someone is given even a legitimate command but it is physically or morally impossible to obey, or even gravely inconvenient to obey, then the law itself declares that that person is exempt (see Canons 1321 §1 and 1323 §4). He is excused from obedience and therefore he cannot be inflicted with any canonical penalty.
It is very obvious that according to the norms of canon law, set forth in black and white in the canons of the Code of Canon Law, that Father Gruner cannot be considered suspended. Nor can the pronouncement of a sentence of suspension be inflicted on him for the alleged offense of refusing to obey the command to return to the Diocese of Avellino, since that command, according to law, is null and void.
Even if it were a legitimate command, under the circumstances it is impossible for him to obey because its against the civil laws of Italy. And beyond that, even if they were to give him all the necessary documentation to return to Avellino, he would still not be able to be suspended because he has pointed out the very grave difficulties that this would create for him, insurmountable difficulties.
What has been the response of the Apostolic Signatura? They refuse to engage in any argumentation of these questions. They simply state that they reject them. Without any explanations they reject all of the objections that Father Gruner has made, so well-formulated as they may be. No matter how logical and coherent is the argumentation of Father Gruner in his defense, the court does not endeavor to answer his objections, but merely rejects them without any further explanation.
What is the reason for this? If we look to past history, there is the example of a canonical appeal made by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. We can recall how, in reaction to the withdrawal of canonical recognition from (i.e. the suppression of) the Society of St. Pius X and notably its Seminary at Econe, the Archbishop made a canonical appeal, fulfilling all of the technicalities of canon law, appealing the order because on procedural grounds the order was null and void. It was as clear as black and white. Canon 493 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law stated explicitly that an ecclesiastical entity such as the Society of St. Pius X, existing already in more than three dioceses, such an entity cannot be suppressed by a local bishop. It can only be validly, legally suppressed by the competent authorities of the Apostolic See.
However, no one in the Vatican wanted to take upon himself the responsibility of exercising the authority of the Holy See. They wanted to pass the buck to the local bishop. And so the Vatican authorities told the local bishop in Switzerland, "You give the order to close it down." This order is clearly invalid, beyond any legitimate debate. It is very clearly invalid. The law specifies very clearly that only the proper Vatican authority could have given the order to close it down, where, in fact, the order to shut down that seminary was given by the local bishop.
Therefore Archbishop Lefebvre made an appeal to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. He was appealing against a clear-cut, obvious abuse of authority, a canonical, juridical act that was null and void, and obviously so. So it was a foregone conclusion that if Archbishop Lefebvres case was going to be heard in court, he was going to win his appeal and his seminary in Econe would have had to stay open.
The Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura at the time was Cardinal Sabattani who related how he had received a phone call from none other than the Vatican Cardinal Secretary of State Cardinal Jean Villot, who ordered Cardinal Sabattani not to hear the case. And so the court said the case couldnt be heard because of a secret directive given by what he called "a higher authority" who was none other than the Cardinal Secretary of State. This term "a higher authority" does not mean the Pope.
It is not the Pope because normally the standard phraseology in Curial documents would say "by order of the Supreme Pontiff" or a similar phrase which clearly indicates that it is the Pope and only the Pope. The phrase "a higher authority" is never used to indicate the Pope.
Since the restructuring inside the Vatican in 1967 (which I will explain later), there is in the special legislation for the inner workings of the various dicasteries of the Holy See the provision that the Secretary of State can issue these kinds of secret rulings, blocking the most legitimate appeals.
So it doesnt matter, no matter how great was the injustice, no matter how obvious the violation of law, the court is given, by a secret whispering from the Cardinal Secretary of State, the directive that the case must not be heard or that it must make a contrary ruling. Then if those in the Signatura are going to obey their orders, they will give the contrary ruling, and they will say that black is white.
This is, in fact, what happened in Father Gruners case. Father Gruner, in his defense, in his appeals, and in his recourses that went up to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, made it very plain and clear, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the order for him to return to Avellino was null and void. It was canonically illicit, it was an abuse. Under the circumstances, the bishop could not order him to return to Avellino. The bishop could not order him to violate the laws of the Italian Republic. Canon 22 forbids that the bishop should give such a command to a priest, to violate the immigration laws of the Italian Republic.
Therefore, from the very beginning, ab initio the order was canonically null and void. And therefore Father Gruner cannot be penalized with any ecclesiastical penalty. He cannot be suspended a divinis for failure to obey an unlawful command.
What was the verdict given by the court? They simply claimed that Father Gruners argument is entirely lacking any foundation. And therefore he is to be considered suspended. Why does the court make the ruling which is such an obvious, flagrant lie? The answer is they are following the Party Line dictated to them by the Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano.
How did this come about? In canon law and moral theology there is an expression "Nemo tenetur ad impossibile" - "No one is bound to do the impossible." Father Gruner was commanded to do the impossible. He was commanded to go to Avellino, take up permanent residence as an illegal alien in violation of the Code of Canon Law, specifically Canon 22.
|Father Paul Kramer, at our Rome Peace Conference, reveals the masonic plot to destroy the Catholic Church by infiltrating the Church and gaining positions of high authority and abusing that authority.|
When Obedience is Sinful
All too often we hear people say "You must obey. Your bishop is your superior, you must obey him."
If you look in any of the approved manuals of moral theology, you will find in Prummer, Merkelbach and all the others, what is called the "sin of indiscreet obedience". Sometimes obedience is not a virtue. This is the Catholic moral doctrine. Sometimes it is a sin to obey. If in a poor family, for example, a father commands his daughter to sell her body in prostitution, she is obligated by the law of God to resist and to disobey her legitimate superior, her father.
And if a bishop commands a priest to violate the civil and ecclesiastical law, it is impossible for him to obey. Because if he obeys, he commits a sin. That is Catholic moral teaching. We must have a Catholic understanding of obedience. When Archbishop Lefebvre was commanded by his bishop to close down his seminary, his objection was: the command is illegally, canonically null and void. Its as plain as the light of day. And he quoted the canon, he quoted the law of the Church which said that for such an institution as his, only Rome, only the Vatican that is, the competent authority in Rome had the power to issue a decree suppressing the seminary.
But the Vatican balked at doing that. They refused to issue that command. They delegated the authority, but they did not have the power to delegate that authority because it was specified by the law itself that the higher Roman authority was the only one that could give this order. So the order was illegal, it was invalid. Archbishop Lefebvre had every right before God and before man to disobey, because it was an unlawful command.
What was the local bishops answer? Its an answer that I will never forget. Archbishop Lefebvre quoted it. He explained what the local bishop said to him: "Obedience, obedience, obedience! The council, the council, the council!" This is mindless.
So often whenever a priest resists an abuse of power of a superior, people who lack understanding will say "but Father, the Church is not a democracy. You must obey your superiors because the Church is a hierarchy. You are the subject, your bishop is your superior, you must obey."
What these people do not understand is that those who resist unlawful orders have no illusions about the Church being a democracy. It is not a democratic principle, it is a point of law. It is certainly true that the Church is not a democracy, but at the same time, the Church is not a dictatorship. The Church is indeed a hierarchy, which, therefore, the Church is governed by laws according to the principle of subsidiarity.
In a properly ordered hierarchy you have supreme authority. And in the Roman Catholic Church the Supreme Pontiff, the Roman Pontiff, has the plenitudo potestatis, the fullness of power. He does not have absolute power but he has the supreme power on earth, universal jurisdiction over the entire Church and over every individual soul. He delegates authority to those who are under him. Those he promotes to the rank of bishop, he assigns them their proper jurisdiction. And under the bishops, the priests are assigned their canonical mission and they are given their proper jurisdiction. And according to the laws, from the laws regarding the powers, responsibilities, rights, and prerogatives of the highest authority or the lowest curate, parochial assistants, lay persons, all have rights defined and established by law.
Each one has his own proper sphere of authority and responsibility and is to exercise his responsibilities and authority in accordance with the law of the Church and the moral doctrine of Jesus Christ our Lord. If they step beyond the boundaries of either of these, they abuse their authority, they exceed their authority, and they have no power to command what is beyond the limitations of their authority. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that one is not obligated to obey if one is not subject to the law, and one would not be subject to the law if one is not under the jurisdiction of that legislator or if the law or precept is beyond the authority of that lawgiver.
If Father Gruner, for example, as he is incardinated in the Archdiocese of Hyderabad, is pronounced suspended by the Bishop of Avellino, who is not his bishop Father Gruner is not a subject of the Bishop of Avellino he is not subject to obey that law because the Bishop of Avellino has no jurisdiction over Father Gruner.
If the Cardinal Archbishop of New York City were to command Father Gruner to take up residence in the city of New York, where he has his jurisdiction, Father Gruners answer would be "but Your Eminence, you have no jurisdiction over me. I dont belong to your diocese, I dont have to obey you. I obey my bishop."
St. Thomas Aquinas explains that you do not have to obey commands or persons to whom you are not subject. There are limitations to obedience. They are limited by the boundaries and definitions of authority in accordance to that principle of subsidiarity. Those who are under the ecclesiastical governance of the Roman Pontiff are assigned their limited sphere of authority. And under them, there are those who have further limited authority. But each one must govern according to that degree of power that is given to them, which is rooted in the power given by Christ Himself.
Here we have the Catholic understanding of obedience. It is something limited. Dictatorship is something entirely different. The Church is a divine institution constituted as a perfect society. The Church, therefore, is not a dictatorship but is properly governed according to Catholic moral doctrine and ecclesiastical law. According to Church law and moral theology, Father Gruner cannot be obliged to obey, nor can he be validly penalized for non-compliance with an unlawful command. He cannot be penalized because it is very clearly expressed in the Code of Canon Law, Canon 221 section 3, "Christs faithful have the right that no canonical penalties be inflicted upon them except in accordance with the law."
That also includes a universal statute of the Church that we call Canon 22 which says that the Church assumes the obligation of the pertinent civil laws. The civil law of the Italian Republic requires proper documentation and issuance of a visa for permanent residence. If that is not granted, then Father Gruner cannot obey without violating the law of the Church and therefore violating the law of God. It would be a sin for him to obey. But he has been commanded by the hierarchs of the Roman Curia to commit the sin of violating the law of the Church, to disregard the law of God, and to do what they tell him to do. This is what we call dictatorship.
Restructured Roman Curia Invites Abuses
The Church is not a dictatorship. Dictatorship is a barbaric institution. As Euripides says "among the barbarians all are slaves but one." Our Lord said "the princes of the Gentiles lord it over" their subjects. [Mt. 20:25] He said to His apostles "with you it is not to be this way." Yet we see in the Church of today, the present ecclesiastical reality is that the hierarchs of the Roman Curia lord it over their subjects with an oriental despotism. Unfortunately, since the restructuring of the Roman Curia, around 1967, by order of Pope Paul VI (which was actually designed and carried out by Cardinal Jean Villot), the heads of the various Roman dicasteries have been able to behave like dictators.
Before the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Curia was structured as a monarchy. The Pope was the Prefect of the Holy Office, while the Cardinal in charge of the day-to-day business of the Holy Office was the second-in-command. The other dicasteries were of lower rank. And while having their own authority and jurisdiction, again in accordance with that principle of subsidiarity, they were subordinate to the Holy Office, and the Holy Office was directly under the Pope.
This arrangement was entirely in keeping with the Divine Constitution of the Church. The Pope, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, was at the head of the chain of command. After Vatican II, Cardinal Villot engineered the restructuring of the Roman Curia. Long before Gorbachev announced his program of perestroika in the Soviet Union, the Church underwent its own perestroika in the Roman Curia. The Holy Office was renamed but far more significant the Holy Office lost its supreme position in the Curia. The Curia was restructured in such a manner that placed the Cardinal Secretary of State over all the other dicasteries, including the former Holy Office. Renamed and restructured, it was now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Pope was no longer the Prefect, it was the Cardinal who was the Prefect.
According to the previous arrangement under the Pope and his Holy Office, faith and morals were the preeminent factors determining curial policies. In the post-conciliar arrangement, under the Cardinal Secretary of State and his dicastery, the Secretariat of State, it is the Party Line the politics of the Secretary of State that is the supreme determining factor in the formulation of policies.
The Holy Office is subordinate to the Secretary of State and so the role of the Holy Father, the Supreme Pontiff, is reduced to the function of a figurehead to give his approval, as a rubber stamp, to the rulings which are presented to him as a fait accompli. The Pope has been reduced to being a figurehead in the service of the dictatorship of the Secretary of State.
In the Masonic registry, one did find the name of Jean Villot. After Cardinal Villot died, in his private library was found the handwritten message from the Grand Master praising him for upholding Masonic traditions. As one priest friend said to me, "at least in one area he was traditional." Remember what I said at the beginning of this talk regarding what St. Maximilian saw in 1917 in Rome. He saw the Masons carrying placards announcing their intention to infiltrate the Vatican so that satan would rule from the Vatican and the Pope would be his slave, and that they would destroy the Church by means of holy obedience. Now we can begin to understand why. The lie has become sacred; no surprise among the Marxists and Leninists of the world, but it is something to be viewed as very strange indeed that those who in the name of the truth of Jesus Christ and His Gospel now dictate, in defiance of the curse of Sacred Scripture, that black is white. And the Scripture does curse the one who does this, because it is perverse.
Again, what is truth? According to the errors of Russia, truth is what promotes the revolution. The errors of Russia, as I have pointed out, are Masonic errors. "Truth" is what promotes the Masonic agenda, the New World Order.
Father Manfred Adler in his book that I cited earlier, The Anti-Christian Revolution of Freemasonry, quotes authentic Masonic sources in which it is explained that their program is to change the Church to make it a Christianity without dogmas. A church free of dogmas so that in the spirit of ecumenism, Catholics can be in unity and agreement with all of the other religions and denominations that oppose the defined dogmas of the Catholic Faith. This is the perverse program of Freemasonry, to destroy the Church and turn it into a Masonic entity.
When this is carried out, a transformation will have taken place. What was formerly considered to be the Roman Catholic Church will in reality become the Roman Protestant Conciliar Ecumenical Church. In the Message of Our Lady of Fatima, in the Third Secret that has not been revealed, Sister Lucy has spoken about that. In many of her letters about our times, she refers to the "diabolical disorientation" that has taken place in the Church.
Cardinal Ratzinger, some years ago, spoke of the dangers to the Faith and life of the Christian. The Bishop of Leiria-Fatima spoke of the apostasy, the loss of Faith on entire continents. Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of the Third Secret of Fatima as corresponding to what has been revealed in many other Marian apparitions. Those apparitions refer to a great chastisement. The apparition of Our Lady of Good Success speaks about a tremendously destructive war occurring at the end of the 20th Century. The 20th Century has just ended recently, and according to all indications the world is moving swiftly now towards a tremendous World War.
Just over a year ago, according to the dictate of the Party Line, the sacred lie, we were told by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Bertone that the period of history marked by lust for power and evil is now over. Yet on the day we began this conference, war broke out between the United States and Afghanistan, and threatens to become a regional and perhaps a World War.
Fatima vs. the Party Line
The Message of Fatima is diametrically opposed to the Party Line of Cardinal Sodano, the Secretary of State. In accordance with the Party Line of Cardinal Sodano, the false morals of the Vaticans ostpolitik and the false dogma of ecumenism which is the Masonic policy of destroying the dogmas of the Faith are being used to obscure the doctrine of the Faith in order to create a counterfeit Christianity, which the Masons call a "Christianity without dogmas", so we will not have the Catholic unity of "one Lord, one Faith, one baptism". [Eph. 4:5] But rather we will have a unity like the Tower of Babel, the unity of all religions and ecclesial institutions like one great world congress, a world conference of churches.
What is Cardinal Sodanos position on important doctrinal issues such as the unity of the Church? Is it a Catholic unity the unity of the one Lord, one Faith, one baptism? Or is it the Protestant ecumenical unity an heretical view of unity which claims that we are not different religions in different churches, we are all Christians? According to this heretical view, we all belong to the Christian Church but we are various denominations of that church.
I think its sufficient to point out that Cardinal Sodano publicly praised one of the most notorious heretics on earth, Father Hans Kung, who has not been declared to be suspended, even though he denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. He wrote a book which argued against the defined dogma of papal infallibility. No true Catholic, no one who is orthodox in his Catholic Faith, would dare to praise such a heretic as Hans Kung. Only a neo-Catholic, a Modernist, would presume to do such a thing.
Sister Lucy of Fatima spoke of the new orientation of the Church as a diabolical disorientation in the Church. Back in the 1960s, the new breed took care to peddle their poison under the guise of innocuous labels. The tactic was so successful that many, even now, have not yet caught on. "Renewal", "change of perspectives", "new attitudes", "new approaches" are terms that have clearly, cleverly, and perversely camouflaged a doctrinal shift away from the Catholic Faith, outside of which it is impossible to be saved, as is clearly taught by the solemn profession of the Tridentine profession of Faith. Outside of the Catholic Faith it is impossible to be saved. One must profess every article of Faith, every defined dogma of Faith, otherwise one does not have the virtue of Faith.
I will close therefore with a quotation of one of the greatest historians of the 20th Century, Father Hubert Jedin. It is not only Sister Lucy referring to the Third Secret of Fatima who speaks of the diabolical disorientation in the Church. To understand the nature of what this diabolical disorientation is accomplishing, the great Father Hubert Jedin, one of the premier historians of the modern era, already pointed out in 1968, in his letter to the German bishops, that a new Protestant Reformation is taking place in the Church.
This is what he says:
"We know that today the inner process of schism, the formation of a confession (which is to say a denomination) lasted not years but decades. Melanchton and Calvin claimed to be Catholic until the end of their lives while the adherents of the old Faith were calumniated as Papists. The faithful long clung to the Mass and their saints and the Church regulations introduced by Lutheran magistrates took over many Catholic customs, even processions and pilgrimages. The bulk of the simple faithful never ever understood that the reformation was not a reform of the Church but the construction of a new Church set up on a different basis. In retrospect, one must therefore maintain the schism of the Church succeeded by nothing so much as the illusion that it did not exist. The illusion was widespread in Rome and in the German episcopates, among many theologians, among the majority of clergymen, and among the people. The parallels between now and then are obvious, the Churchs present crisis in its innermost essence as in the 16th Century is a matter of uncertainty and disorientations in the Faith."